UN takes Britain to task over smacking

The United Nations warned UK ministers yesterday that their refusal to ban smacking in the home was a serious violation of the international convention to protect the rights of children.

It challenged the government's view that parents should be allowed to use "reasonable chastisement" to teach discipline in the family, including smacking that fell short of violence.

Children's charities were delighted that the UN committee on the rights of the child said it was "very concerned that legislation prohibiting all corporal punishment ... is not yet in place in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland".

The 10-member committee of international child welfare experts said it "deeply regrets that the UK persists in retaining the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' and has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in the family". This was in breach of a previous UN report in 1995 and amounted to "a serious violation of the dignity of the child".

By suggesting that some forms of corporal punishment were acceptable, the government undermined educational measures to promote positive and non-violent discipline.

It should legislate urgently to prohibit all corporal punishment in the family and run public education programmes to promote non-violent forms of discipline, the committee said.

The UK adopted the convention on rights of the child in 1991 and has to report to the committee once every five years on how well it is protecting the UK's 13.5 million children. The only countries not to adopt the convention are the US and Somalia.

The report was welcomed by Mary Marsh, director of the children's charity NSPCC. She said the 1860 law of "reasonable chastisement" was well past its sell-by date. "It sends out a dangerous message to parents that hitting children is acceptable and safe, which it clearly is not."

David Hinchliffe, Labour chairman of the Commons health committee, said: "Article 19 of the UN convention clearly requires the government to protect children from all forms of physical violence and our law as it currently stands simply does not do this."

Mr Hinchliffe, who worked in child protection before entering parliament, said: "The 'reasonable chastisement' defence undermines our child protection agencies and undoubtedly results in children being ill treated and in some instances killed."

The government said it was already protecting children from physical violence and maltreatment, as the convention required. A spokeswoman for the Home Office's children and young persons unit said: "We believe our policy reflects common sense views of the vast majority of people. It is not only wrong but dangerous to link smacking and child abuse deaths. It diverts attention from those children most at risk."

The UN congratulated the UK on some improvements in children's rights since 1995, including the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and the Human Rights Act. It praised the commitment to end child poverty, but warned that this programme lacked a strategy and adequate resources.

The UN also criticised the UK for detaining the children of asylum seekers and failing to give them basic services such as education and health.

It was "deeply concerned" that England was not following the example of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in setting up an organisation to protect the human rights of children.

The UK should raise the age of criminal responsibility that was as low as eight in Scotland and 10 in the rest of the UK.

Paul Cavadino, chief executive of Nacro, said: "The UK continues to lock up more - and much younger - children than any other country in western Europe. This is despite overwhelming evidence that for most young offenders, custody makes it more - not less - likely that they will continue to commit crime."